User:Beetstra/Delta-Arb

Statement by Beetstra
On one side, I very much welcome a full blown ArbCom to revisit the issues with $\delta$, while on the other hand (I am sorry), I do not see any avail in them. Anyway, the current situation is simply a never ending story. Take as an example the 'pattern' restriction - which in itself is already a difficult term to define, which I and Hammersoft have tried to show ad absurdum (Devils' advocate: is editing 25 mainspace articles a pattern of editing - I believe so by definition; and 13 edits out of pattern 'a' and 13 edits out of pattern 'b' can easily be formed into 'doing 26 edits with a pattern' - and that is exactly where it is left, at the discretion of any administrator, whether the pattern breaks Wikipedia or not, a pattern is a pattern). I do agree that there were also definable patterns in s' edits of last - there is a pattern of removing images, there is a pattern of avoiding template redirects, etc. - and for those should have asked for permission to perform.[1]

But then, should ask for permission to do patterned edits, which is by design a futile action:  has a restriction for not doing patterned edits (many would say: with reason) -  asks for permission for a certain pattern - some editors will claim the he has a restriction not to do patterned edits because  will make mistakes at some time, so they oppose because they do not trust  to do a patterned edit. In short: is allowed to do patterned edits when approved by the community where the community will never approve (by consensus) any pattern.

One following question is then - is there (still) harm in these (patterned or unpatterned) edits. One group of editors is believing that when is doing patterned edits then that will inevitably be the result - either harm will be done to Wikipedia, or  will be uncivil, or  will be unresponsive. I, as part of the other group, say that there is over thousands and thousands of edits no massive harm (but occasional mistakes[2], and occasional sub-optimal edits are there); has hardly been (excessively) uncivil (something that can not always be said of opposing parties; although that still does not give  the right to return the 'favor' of incivility); and I have not seen cases where  was unresponsive (though the response may have been to dismiss the claim and carry on).

Then there are the bot(-like) edits. Also there it is word against word. One vocal group says that the edits are automated, or could have been performed fully automated (absolutely true that that could have happened) - says that they are scripted, and all supervised. Opposers agree that most are beneficial, but are then saying that here and there there are suboptimal edits or downright mistakes which were not carefully checked, and hence, that it must be automated, the response is then that mistakes can also be there in supervised edits. Though there is no proof that the edits are unsupervised and fully automatic, there is also no proof that the edits are fully automated and unsupervised.

The restrictions, now and already for a long time, are simply being used to suppress any advance. Every single mistake (or even, suboptimal edit) is taken to say that can't work properly, and following is that every violation of a restriction is used as proof to show that  can not possibly work without restrictions, or that it is contempt for the community.

Many of the opposers do not see s mistakes as (human) mistakes, there is no attempt to work things out with, they are simply used enforce the restrictions, and to extend the restrictions, and to keep the restrictions in place - and obviously any violation of restriction must be

[1]Note: proceeded with the pattern after a AN/I thread was ended with 'If anyone has multiple diffs, indicating a pattern edit that is in violation of the specific sanctions applied, please provide them here. To date the conversation has wandered extensively but lacked actionable specifics. If specific actionable violation patterns are not presented, then this is not requiring administrator action. If other users are unhappy with Beta / Delta then a User RFC can be started. This isn't the venue for general complaints that aren't an actual sanction or policy violation. Details, or closure. Please. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)'.

[2]Note: I would argue that mistakes are human, but the counterargument is then immediately that the edit must have been without supervision, because obviously no human would have made that mistake. See my section on bot(-like) edits.